Pretty good question, and one this episode had me asking myself anyway.
I have in principle been and think I still am, against Trident/nuclear weapons. Unlinked to 'party' politcs or other convictions.
I am open to changing my mind, and seeing a side that makes me rethink. This whole situation certainly comes close.
Ultimately, just not enough, yet. Some thoughts below.
- Is it really a deterrant, or actually a bit of a target. Would say Russia, if drawn into a nuclear conflict not target places With nuclear capacity first, over places without.
- If Ukraine had nukes, or hadnt given up its share, would this invasion been less likely? I honestly doubt it, if anything, Putin would have brought his into the equation much sooner. Ukraine woud maybe have been able to posture, but it would have escalated quicker, and the line between good guy bad guy blurred, making propoanda much less black and white
- Can the money spent on it be put to better uses. Abdolutely.
I remain on the 'not for me' side on Trident. If that means less aggression or presence in conflicts at a world stage, so be it.
